TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Order Overturned: Input Tax Credit Claim Reopened with Mandatory Personal Hearing and Deposit Requirement</h1> <h3>M/s. Oasys Cybernetics Private Limited, Represented by its General Manager (Finance), Mr. Debasisha Samal Versus State Tax Officer</h3> HC allowed the writ petition challenging a tax order, setting aside the original order and directing respondents to reconsider the Input Tax Credit (ITC) ... Input Tax Credit (ITC) reflected in GSTR 2A was not properly taken into consideration - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record screen shots from the GST portal in respect of the auto-populated GSTR 2A. The said document reflects details of 11 bills of entry. As regards such 11 bills of entry, the confirmed tax demand warrants reconsideration. Upon excluding the tax component relating to the said 11 bills of entry, the disputed tax demand is about Rs. 77,59,284/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner agrees to remit a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. The impugned order dated 07.03.2024 is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits Rs. 8,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging order on Input Tax Credit (ITC) consideration in GSTR 2A.Analysis:The writ petition challenged an order dated 07.03.2024, contending that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reflected in GSTR 2A was not properly considered. The petitioner received a notice in Form ASMT 10 on 17.08.2023, followed by a show cause notice on 19.09.2023. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice on 18.10.2023 and 23.01.2024. The impugned order was issued subsequent to these communications.The petitioner's counsel argued that the adjudication order referenced amounts not visible in the GST Model-2 portal, which were not made accessible to the petitioner. The counsel highlighted that GSTR 2A displayed 11 bills of entry and corresponding amounts, indicating an error in the confirmed tax proposal that necessitated reconsideration.On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent contended that principles of natural justice were adhered to by notifying the petitioner of discrepancies through Form ASMT 10 on 17.08.2023. He emphasized that the taxpayer's responses to the show cause notice were duly taken into account. Information regarding the mismatch was obtained from ICEGATE, with the Model-2 portal serving as a source of information for the GST Department.The petitioner presented screenshots from the GST portal showing the auto-populated GSTR 2A, revealing details of 11 bills of entry. Upon excluding the tax component related to these entries, the disputed tax demand amounted to approximately Rs. 77,59,284/-. The petitioner, through counsel, agreed to remit Rs. 8,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand as a condition for reconsideration.Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 on the condition that the petitioner remit Rs. 8,00,000/- within four weeks. Upon receipt of the sum, the respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months. The writ petition was disposed of without any costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
